Maurice Ashley has announced on his Facebook page that due to a loss and lack of sponsorship, the Millionaire Chess Tournament is no more. While is was a fun idea to think big and promote chess in a big way, it apparently didn’t take off.
From the MC web site, emphasis added.
"Amy Lee exemplifies the expression “go big or go home.” A self-made millionaire, Amy has spent her career pursuing business opportunities that captivate her attention. She built one of the first dollar store franchise chains in Vancouver, BC, and found success in high-end real estate development, banking, and restaurant management, all before deciding to retire at the age of 38.
Passionate about tackling new challenges, she instantly saw an opportunity in the Millionaire Chess Open and decided to “unretire” to take it on as her first project after travelling the world with her son for two years. Through her longtime friend Maurice Ashley, Amy saw the potential to bring chess into the mainstream, raising the game to a completely new level."
What happened? I have to ask whether the do it big approach is really the best way to build chess and raised the profile of chess long term in the US. What can US Chess learn, if anything, from this as it moves toward its (c)3 mission?
There’s a cultural difference between Europe, where chess popular enough to get sponsors for even smaller, high visibility events, and the United States where contact sports rules the airwaves.
I helped run some scholastic chess tournament when I was in college. (Murray State University). I think the biggest canvased 7 states, and I don’t recall any sponsors for the event. I would presume the national championships would have some sponsors, but I guess only because the media would be there, giving any sponsors a slim chance of being seen in any footage filmed at the event. -This was back in the early 90’s, by the way.
Dr. Bell was the one that ran the events. As far as the 7 state scholastic event, that was pretty awesome. Amazing that the entire event happened in one… very long… day. There was enough trophies given out to sink a battleship. :lol
Dr. Bell ran at least one really large scholastic tournament each year if I recall, but I can’t recall if any of the others were as big as the one I mentioned in this post. Fun times, good memories of yesteryear for me.
But, getting back to the topic, there really isn’t any driving reason for companies to sponsor chess events like they would in Europe where the general public is more interested in news coverage of chess tournaments.
I think the best way to sponsor is to give discounted entry fees. Such as people with X car insurance get $5 off. It seems like a total bargain for the sponsoring company to get their name out there. If 20 of 100 players have it, then the cost is $100 to market your product to the other 80 players.
I, for one, won’t miss it. With a four figure entry fee plus all the normal travel costs associated with a tournament like this, it was priced out of the range of many chess players. Ashley also did himself no favors when Nakamura and McShane thumbed their noses at the 30 move draw rule and were allowed to get away with it. That alienated more people than the organizers realized. In any case, the whole concept of giving huge cash prizes to rank amateurs while many pros go home empty handed is not one that needs to be encouraged. In no other country in the world would anyone even consider doing this.
Is the big money event the best way to build and grow chess in the United States? Can it be done this way without a large infrastructure of clubs and chess organizations? US Chess has under 100K members in the US. The demise of this tournament should raise serious questions for US Chess leadership as it moves to implement its new mission as a broader based 501 (c)3 organization as opposed to its prior (c)4 tax status. The Amy Lees and Rex Sinquefields bring money and some glitz, but we need to build broad based community chess. To Rex’s credit he has done some of this with the St. Louis Chess and Scholastic Center. Instead of large tournaments like this, maybe we need to find ways to fund and replicate the St. Louis CSC endeavor in markets throughout the US.
i play chess to have fun. i sort of get the same “thrill” as when i gamble. dropping huge sums just to enter a tournament makes it seem more like work. i think that’s why the team tournaments are popular. i’m in it for the competition and “the thrill of victory, agony of defeat”.
The first tournaments in the 1800’s were funded through generous patrons and public subscriptions. That model continued into the 1900’s. The most prominent tournaments with masters were held at spas, hotels, and casinos. Occasionally, amateur sections were attached. These were all played in round robin formats. They continue to this day in a modified format in chess festivals in Europe and Asia.
Mass tournaments using the Swiss System have taken quite a while to grow. The funding for these types of events have depended on two sources. In many European countries, government has funded chess. A few city governments sponsor yearly chess festivals. They are a combination of private and public funding. In the US, the mass model has depended on player entry fees. The size and scope of the event is dependent on how high the players are willing to spend money on entry fees as well as travel. The cost for the big money tournaments is too much for the average player who is more of an enthusiast/hobbyist rather than a sports competitor. These large swisses cater to a more affluent player and those with a gambling mentality who will do almost anything to win. The enthusiast/hobbyist is a fish to be gobbled up in this environment. Without major sponsorship by corporations who want to get something in return because of their investment or a rich patron who just wants to dabble in chess for personal reasons, such large tournaments are financially risky to organize. It is unlikely that government, especially here in the US or UK will get involved in the development of large, mass events like Millionaire Chess.
In general, the history of the USCF has seen the organization be involved in tournaments through the development of a rating system. This has allowed clubs and small time organizers, who themselves are more enthusiast/hobbyist than capitalist entrepreneurs, to run local and regional events. For profit corporations who run tournaments are few. While the USCF services these organizations and rates their events, the focus of the organization has been mostly to service local chess. It is only in the last two decades that the USCF has gone beyond the US Open and a couple other USCF sponsored national events to take a larger role in scholastic chess development. Without the type of resources necessary to risk funding of major mass level events, the USCF is unable to grow the Swiss System style of event to any significant degree. Chess in the US has developed to the degree it has more to the “kindness of strangers” than to the use of strategic planning and a network of corporate partnerships.
I didn’t think the USCF had much to do with the tournament. In any event, I think this type of big money event was only good for the first year as far as media attention.
I thought ChessSpawn was saying USCF was involved when he mentioned the tournament should raise serious questions for US Chess Leadership. No biggie. :mrgreen:
My point was that it would be good to look at what Rex S has done with both his money to sponsor tournaments and, IMO more importantly, seeding the creation of the St. Louis CSC as a startup with a foundation to run it and raise funds for it’s continuation operationally in the St. Louis community. That is something US Chess may well consider as a model for other cities. A related alternative might be for US Chess to assist state affiliates in using SLCSC as the model to create similar centers from which to grow chess in their states. Some states, like VT have areas where convertable buildings in older manufacturing cities can be had for low cost.
If we can find significant benefactors in other cities, sure - but make no mistake, the primary driver here was a willingness by a single donor to pour A LOT of money into starting the club. My guess is that it now has a membership that might sustain it - although the many ‘high end’ features of the club (including its location in a high rent part of STL) might suggest otherwise.
My understanding is that Rex S. essentially paid for the building and seeded the foundation set up to run the club. The foundation has reached out to the community and has apparently done well in raising money to keep the place functioning in the black.
Every area is different, but I think the basic plan Rex put into play in St. Louis can and should be considered elsewhere. Where the see money comes from is an open question. If an area can find a benefactor, great. If not, there may be foundations and state/local government programs looking toward rehabbing buildings in dying towns and small cities. IMO, it’s worth looking in to.
I went to a fundraiser for the St Louis club last month. Don’t doubt the power of the club patron to be able to raise money from others to make it go.
We have a much more modest operation in Louisville which is making it. No one is having to feed it much money but there is a lot of sweat going on to make it viable.
I suspect that is a much more viable business model for other cities to emulate. There are not that many US chess benefactors willing to pour at least a million dollars into their local chess club to get it started.
It’s true that there aren’t many benefactors like Rex. However, in a market with relatively low real estate prices, there are possible alternatives to the single benefactor formula for seeding such a project.
One of the problems local chess clubs consistently have is that of maintaining a viable venue, be that an affordable rental or free (or low cost) space for use. A chess club like The Marshall is viable today because of the gift of a now well situated townhouse in Manhattan. Without that, The Marshall might well be a memory like the Manhattan Chess Club.
How much capital would be needed to purchase a property for a chess center depends on the real estate prices in the area, the scope of the center’s prospective market and the availability of seed money sources, both private and governmental. If an educational component is factored in to such a project, the possibilities for government supported funding and some foundation funding increases.
Once the purchase of a property is possible and done, the sweat equity work begins with the center/organization’s volunteers. The setting up of a foundation or non-profit to run the facility and fund raise for it becomes a crucial component. In that sense, the St. Louis Chess and Scholastic model becomes well worth looking at.
Do either of you know if the St. Louis club has a business plan that US Chess might be able to obtain and share with affiliates as something of a guide for such projects?